Wow, did YOU ever miss the point! Go read Strauss v. Horton, the decision.

Today's Court decision did not concern gay marriage and equal protection. The issue before the Court in Strauss v. Horton was self-governance; how Californians amend their state Constitution.

Unlike the SCOTUS who are appointed for life, the Cal Supremes are elected, so they predictably just tossed the ball back to the electorate. As George Takei observed: "They decided to be indecisive."

The Court needed to avoid the obvious conclusion that they are countenancing separate and unequal regimes for straight and gay couples seeking state recognition (for purposes of inheritance, state taxes, reciprocity, etc.). Straight people get marriage, gay people get less beneficial civil unions. The challenge was for the Court to find a plausible and convincing way of concluding that this two-way regime doesn’t amount to an equal protection violation, despite the fact that last November they pretty much concluded that it did.

Well good Im glad they up held up what over 52% of Californians voted for personally it shouldn't have even went back to the courts. I agree this isn't the end to the gay's movement for "equal rights" or what have you. Now its time for the sore loser to just shut up.

Why can't a compromise be reached. I have seen co-exist twice today. Maybe we need to learn what co-exist is. Marriage came from the Religious believers. The Gay movement started off by wanting to share all the benefits married couples had. The compromise is a marriage certificate and a civil union certificate. Co-exist and a solution everyone can live with.

- Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) did not decide "when life begins." Roe v. Wade concluded that most laws against abortion in the United States violated a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

- The California Supreme Court did not define "THEIR right to redefine the constitution." Just the opposite.

- The California Supreme Court did not decide "that homosexuals were "born that way." The ruling in Strauss v. Horton had nothing to do with sexual orientation, a fact that was emphasized in the Courts conclusion.

Don't you read any of this stuff first?

No, he doesn't. And he won't. He won't ever read or try to understand anything that doesn't fit into his rigidly orthodox conservative ideology.

Can anyone remember any instance when O_P_R_T_P_D changed his mind on anything as a result of any information posted on this website?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Lol this is funny co-exist...They can exist just not be married. We already co-exist with them we can't afford to compromise the definition of marriage its just not fundamentally sound. If we let them be married then whats next? Dogs,cats,birds,sheep etc???? I dont't know about you but we can't just let this group or that group get laws and rights because they feel left out homosexuality is a decision 100%. Your not born with it thats BS and I will take that to my grave.The age group 18-34 are in favor of gay marriage those are the people who want to see this epidemic the, older crowed is divided on this topic. when talking about a civil union the numbers are opposite its kind of funny how that works don't you think?

Miuwtant,

Good point.

Linclo... A civil union is not a marriage. It is simular with the same legal obligations.

No Skeptic, I did not miss the point. I nailed it.

The CASC was wrong in their first decision and the people over-rode them.

This decision is no decision at all. They are now punting to the SCOTUS where Prop 8 will not only be overturned, but the USSC will mandate that all states must provide for marriage as a legal status between homosexuals.

The path is totally predictable, and it explains why Gavin Newsom started the ball rolling in the first place. They have a legal strategy and losing this case at this point in time was the basis for taking it to the SCOTUS.

The whole terminology in use around this is designed to create the appearance of a civil rights case, and its intentional. "Separate but equal"???

Homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexuals. Until someone proves otherwise, this *should* be the basis of understanding, but using a willing media and a political enforcement arm, they ignore this inconvenient truth and pretend its a civil right.

Miuwtant: Over and over you do not attempt to rebut, you simply make a personal attack. You consider this an admirable contribution?

Skeptic; With regard to Roe V Wade "deciding when life begins".... they had to decide that life does not begin at conception to make that determination. Otherwise, they are saying that the right to privacy exceeds the right to life.

You know that.

Ignoring the facts does not make you correct. Should we ignore the Supreme Court's decision, or your uninformed opinion?

Skeptic, ignoring the facts does not make you correct. Should we ignore the facts, or your uninformed personal attacks?

(Next, you can say "OP..why do you insult me?" right?)

Its pretty clear that the left does not want to discuss the points made. You cannot. Judges are not supposed to inject their personal opinion into decisions and they are not supposed to create policy. So you go straight to the personal attacks.

The decision made by the CASC was not a surprise. It was part of the strategy. Those who appealed to the CASC did not think they would win. They knew they would lose, and then take it to the SCOTUS where it could be dealt with by a sweeping political decision.

We are not naive. We know how it works. I am merely pointing out the obvious so that later, I can say "I told you so".

In addition, you are not being coy. We know that you know I am right.

Oh, look, the anachronisms like Tom McClintock's supporters, and the political operatives and Schubert and Flint are jumping for joy on this next opportunity to milk human misery to make a buck to stash in an offshore bank.

This is the New, Hate Mongering Face of the Republican Party.

They may still have a tiny foothold perch here and in certain parts of the south and the wealthier exurbs of the American west, but as for the rest of the country, they've been rejected.

"PROTECT MARRIAGE.COM" is Republican astroturfing for money laundering of excess political campaign donations. It has nothing to do with "marriage" and everything to do with funding the worst of the Republican Party.

It says they believe in Mob Rule in California. Any Church can decide they love Republicans more than a God, and decide to pick any specific group of human beings to ostracize and to target them for persecution and discrimination using state laws.

They must be doing a little Happy Dance in DC right now over it.

Lonewolf, I’m with you on this one. There could be compromise. I just don’t get it. It seems everyone is so rigid. With “civil unions” they could have all of the benefits married couples have, and the sanctity of marriage would remain. What is so difficult to understand about that?

O_P,

Re: Your 6:18 post.

My point is that you are totally locked into your positions. Tell us: On what issue of any substance have you evolved your position in any measurable way through your participation on this site? If the answer is "nothing" then your only purpose here is to use every trick you can think of to either convert people to your way of thinking or confuse them so they don't know what to think.

I have evolved in several areas. I don't start with anything that is locked in stone in terms of my stand on specific issues but I do have some core principles. I think you have core principles and you have applied them to a long list of issues and fixed your position on each.

Tell us: Do you think that's true, or not? If not provide a few examples of times you have evolved or changed.

If you can't then my attack is not ad hominem. It is getting to exactly where you are coming from here and why no one should bother engaging with you unless they want to be:

a) Ridiculed

b) Talked into your position lock, stock and barrel, or

3) Ignored

Bob

lonewolf and patrick... i borrow the following from another to add to your particular points.

I've heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can't they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what's in a name?

A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out.

The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people's ideals shape the way we live our lives.

wrighter - The problem stems from government involvement in licensing marriage and rewarding one kind of bonding with substantial benefits while penalizing any other forms of bonding.

There is quite a bit in a name. Civil union brings with it all the baggage of a second-class institution, in all ways inferior to marriage in the eyes of the state. That government rewards one and not the other simply reinforces that perception.

You can ride on the bus, but you'll have to sit in the back with your own kind.

Miuwtant: The fact that you have not seen me acknowledge when I had my opinion changed does not obligate me to search the record and provide proof. I think there are a few that may remember when I have done so.

However, my goal is not to convince you to change your mind. Its to provide a contrasting viewpoint. Whether you change your mind or not is up to you. Whether I change my mind or not is up to me. Is your goal to change my mind? If so, that explains why you get frustrated. I think your goal is off base. Try just putting out your position, working the interaction, and see if you change your own mind.

wrighter/skeptic; There is only one good reason to have government get involved in marriage in any way. Marriage is the fundamental basis for generating and nurturing the next generation of children into our civilization. Not all marriages do this, but marriage is intended to provide that function and the reason that government sanctions it. Its a "general solution" for a "specific purpose". I think you should be able to grasp what I mean there.

Now, if the liberal/Democrat/GLBT activist strategy works and an activist SCOTUS overturns the CA decision on the basis of a newly created civil right for homosexuals, then marriage will no longer have that value proposition. At that point, I would argue against government involvement in marriage at all and depend upon the religious elements within our culture to provide the support and sanction for marriage to nurture our next generation of children.

Marriage has traditionally been about raising families. You are free to disagree with this tradition. You are free to petition government to change the way it works. I have no problem with that. My issue is with using activist judges to create policy where its clearly not popular, and in contravention to our constitution.

Wrighter and Skeptic, Your rigid views are exactly what is wrong with the debate. You are not the type of people who would ever compromise. You see things through your tiny view point, and that’s it. I have posted recently that I thought this wasn’t about getting the benefits at all, and you both just supported that. It was the Gay community that made the argument that they want to have the same benefits. Were they being dishonest? That line about Unions being for death and marriage being for life really made me laugh. That is the biggest bunch of BS I have read in a long time. Wrighter, Anyone can be the beneficiary of life insurance. Would you care to dispute that? If they made a “civil Union” that encompassed all of the same benefits as marriage, they should then honor the sanctity of marriage for those that believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. If that isn’t good enough, than I will continue to vote they way I did, in support of Prop 8. Many of the people that voted for prop 8 on not religious. I think many will fell the same as I do regarding this issue.

P50,

Civil union brings with it all the baggage of a second-class institution in all ways inferior to civil marriage. That government rewards one and not the other simply reinforces that perception.

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to married couples but not to civil union couples.

Remember there are civil marriages and religious marriages. Both are considered marriages under federal law., but only two states recognize civil unions. They simply are not equal institutions.

pat05 said: our rigid views... our tiny viewpoint... you are not the type of people... biggest bunch of BS... etc.

oh that's rich... LOL whew, i need to catch my breath. you cherry pick your quotes and arguments and skip right over the bigger picture while missing the actual essence of what i said.

you know the "left behind" book series? that title could be about individuals like you and o_p.

it's funny to hear about mirrors and such from o_p in the past and like-minded conservatives who agree with him... but who is it really that is rigid with a narrow viewpoint?* your comments to my honest input for discussion might give a clue to that question. you instead denigrate and attack.

this whole debate about prop 8 has been taken up here many times, been argued from many different directions and views... and you cannot possibly insinuate with any honesty that only one side of the issue - one group - is inflexible. many people like Skeptic, myself and Miuwtant have offered counterpoints, from religious to non-religious and beyond, and the fact remains that after thousands of words being spilled in these forums over this single issue, the conservatives here have not changed nor been swayed off their talking points one iota.

*hint: look up the word, conservative.

Skeptic, Are you not able to comprehend what I have said time and again? Read this carefully; THEY SHOULD MAKE THE BENEFITS OF CILVIL UNIONS THE SAME AS THEY ARE FOR MARRIAGE. Sorry to yell like that, but I can’t understand why you refuse to get my point. Wrighter, I don’t like to attack, but the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that you are a dishonest person. Most of us “conservatives” have compromised. The stand used to be that they should not have the same benefits. Now, we (or at least I feel) feel they should have the same benefits. We would like to see the civil union be changed to include these benefits. In other words, the only difference would be the name. Now, please explain for me where you have compromised. If you can’t, you are a liar. As I said before, you see things your way only; you are absent of compromise.

P50,

Your opinions don’t seem to ring true,

So you've resorted to hate, as you do;

But I've got the facts

your clumsy post lacks

At debate, you just haven’t a clue.

Pat,

Why does it matter to you if some gays somewhere else get married?

Why does it matter? Do you think it will do anything to undercut your marriage? Or the institution as a whole? Do you think fewer heterosexuals will get formally married because homsexuals can get married, too? Do you think the country will stop producing children if gays get married? Do you think men will marry horses or their daughters or their brother if two adult gay or lesbian people are first allowed to be joined in matrimony?

I'm trying to understand why you, personally, take issue with two other people doing something that, as far as I can see, has little or no impact on your life at all.

That's why I have so much trouble with Prop 8. It's not like it affects me personally. I don't even know anybody who will be personally impacted one way or the other (or I'm not aware of anyone I know). So it doesn't matter much to me. So I don't see why I would want to control their ability to follow their hearts to marriage, formal marriage that is as real to them as min is to my wife and me. I can't understand it when people who have no real stake in this are so passionate about making someone else live their lives a certain way because of their own beliefs. I'd like to hear more from you about this.

O_P: How many gay people do you know? I can tell you regardless of your ignorance, eventually, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. If that happens you might consider moving out of the country. Say to the middle east? Where their laws are in line with your conservative beliefs.

Nobody has responded to my point that marriage is sanctioned by government as a general solution to a specific need, the production and nurturing of our children.

You cannot, so you ignore.

I was sure to point out the "general solution to a specific need" to defray the obvious retorts that marriage does not always produce children, nor does parenting require it. Homosexuals cannot produce children but they can "nurture" them, its just that those children would grow up thinking that male-male coupling is normal, and female-female coupling is normal and this just plain not true.

I am beginning to think that while some of the GLBT agenda makers are clearly dishonest, there are a whole lot of deluded people who actually think this is a civil rights issue. If you repeat the lie often enough I guess it will start to become the truth to some who are not very discerning.

Miuwtant: The above addresses your question as to why I (and perhaps Patrick) have an issue with homosexual marriage. It spreads a lie to our children. I also have a problem with the idea of granting special "civil rights" status to someone based upon their sexual preference. If you do that, how can you deny polygamists and incestuous couples/groups?

Suppose the SCOTUS does as I predict and deems homosexual marriage a MUST within the 50 states. All states now have to allow homosexual marriage. Now, a polygamist and his 5 fiancees appear at a county clerk office and request a marriage license with 6 open slots for their names. What rationale would be used to deny them? Behind them in line are two brothers. What rationale could the clerk use to deny them?

I already know you will not respond to that last paragraph because there is no answer that makes any sense. You cannot say "two guys can marry" but "5 people can't" without a rationale...what ONLY two can marry? What about the brothers?

pat05... i never said that i had been flexible about my thoughts on this issue. never. if you were to actually pay closer attention and less knee-jerk reaction, you would understand that i was saying.

you chose to accuse people who have sided for same sex marriage as being "rigid" and "tiny" and "never compromising" and, oh yeah, "dishonest." i simply commented that it is like the pot calling the kettle black. did you not get that meaning from my post? probably not.

in my last post i was implying that for you to call the other side "rigid" is a ludicrous and arbitrary point being introduced into the discussion... and that you and your ilk are equally as rigid. that's it. nothing more. why do you think there is such a heated debate anyway? you don't have to be a rocket surgeon or brain scientist to know that the issue isn't going away easily because, yes, two sides feel strongly and heatedly about it. like duh.

pat05... you use words like dishonest and liar quite freely to paint other people in these forums. i would appreciate it if you would show at least a little bit of respect for others that you have discussions with or you will lose anyone to debate with and you can simply go find a good forum with only like-minded people who don't disagree with you.

i try to use a little humor (some would say *very* little) and sometimes people just don't get the joke or miss the point... for that i apologize... but you have claimed more than once that you tend toward being a humorous person too, yet i fail to see that (or even an attempt at that) in your posts when your ad hominems include subjective accusations of lying, dishonesty other besmirchments of character.

if you don't improve, you will only get my most vicious comeback.... "I know you are, but what am I?!" :-)

Wrighter, I’m not going anywhere. You didn’t address one thing I wrote. We have compromised; you have not. That makes you the “rigid” one, not me. This issue could be resolved if the left would attempt to compromise, just once. Like I said before, I don’t’ like to attack. I know it just make us look ridiculous, like Skeptic. I’ll be eagerly awaiting the next adolescent poem.

Bob, I’m being summoned. I will address your questions in the morning, sorry.

Patrick50, Why are you attacking me?

Ad hominem barbs are for haters.

Fight the argument, not the debater.

If your point has no merit,

you'll just have to bear it

when it's shown that your facts are created.

Old_P:

Your limerick I am refuting.

It’s quite worthless, there is no disputing.

The spelling is bad,

The meter is sad;

I suggest that you stick to computing.

bobcapp: I really think that there was at least 1.8 entendre in that limerick. I doubt any kid got it unless they have already been corrupted by our society.

But I agree with you. No more.

Skeptic, You have to be kidding. I can’t think of anyone here that attacks with more hateful and disrespectful posts than you. If you’re going to dish it out, you’re going to have to be able to take it, as well. I will admit, however, I have been working too hard for too long now and may be a little more combative than usual. I need a vaca, real bad!

So what if "children would grow up thinking that male-male coupling is normal, and female-female coupling is normal?" Maybe you should rethink your definition of what is "normal."

Sex is certainly normal and natural, whether male-male, female-female, or male-female. Same-sex relationships have been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. Even the lowly Cryptococcus neoformans, a cause of fungal meningitis, has been observed in laboratories participating in same-sex mating.

Male Big Horn sheep bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male Big Horn chooses to not have gay sex it becomes a social outcast. And in nature, being an outcast means certain death.

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do Bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques are ardent lesbians. Female Bonobo chimpanzees, one of our closest primate relatives, have lesbian sexual encounters every two hours. Male Bonobos engage in “penis fencing.” They also give each other genital massages. (http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/).

All animals, including humans, have sex just for fun or to cement their social bonds, not just to procure offspring.

People who hate homosexuals are saying that God made a monstrous mistake when he designed 20 percent of humanity, and a lot more if you add in bisexuals.

If you don't like the design, blame the designer.

Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

17. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

16. Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.

15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.

14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.

13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.

12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.

11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.

5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

1. METEORS and VOLCANOES.

Come on OP what say you?

"That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world" (John Adams)

Normal: “Being the sort most often encountered”. Homosexuality is NOT normal. Skeptic is back on his sexual fantasies regarding, men, animals, etc. again. I think you were on to something, OP.

Define "normal"

I just did.

unconvincing.

Bob, I’m sorry it took me so long to respond. I’ve been pulling some long hours lately. Thanks for the sincere acquisition. It is my belief that the purpose of the Gay community is to attack the moral values of America. By that I mean they want to change the definition of “normal.” I have no problem with them doing what ever they want in their own bedrooms. They are acutely aware, however, that they are waging a war against the sanctity of marriage. As I have stated before, I have many Gay friends. What they do in their bedrooms doesn’t directly affect me. What they do out of their bedrooms can indirectly affect me and my children. If they are to have their way, their life style will become “normal” and they will then attempt to infiltrate every part of society. I don’t want to see their life style in school books, being promoted as normal. I do believe that many are born that way. However, I know for a fact that many are not and turned gay as a result of their environment. I would never want harm to come to them. I would like to see them get equal benefits. I will never, however, agree with them changing what so many have cherished for so many years, the sanctity of marriage. Right, wrong or indifferent, those are my feelings regarding the subject. I’ve stated them clearly for many of my Gay friends, and they respect my views. Not all of them agree with me; however, some do. It never used to be a hot button of mine, but since the Gay community has been pressing so hard, I am growing resentful and more active in my resistance to them.

Skeptic, You’ll have to take that up with Webster’s Dictionary.

Skeptic, I didn’t think you’d have a come back to that.